Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 00:04:39 +0000
Subject: MORAL VICTORY for PETER TATCHELL in EASTER SUNDAY TRIAL
From: OW-jgh
The trial resumed at 10:00 a.m., on Tuesday, 1st December.
Tony Benn, (who is currently producing a TV documentary on
"[New] Labour Pains"), pointed out that Parliament has no protection
comparable to that envisaged in the ECJ Act. Indeed, common practice with
hecklers in the Public Gallery there is to hold them in the Clock Tower
until the House rises: but there is no provision to imprison them.
He stated that "Democracy imposes problems for both law-makers and
magistrates", owing to the evolution of Society and the law. "Conscience
is above the law. Conscience is god-made, and the law is man-made."
(Nonbelievers present felt it would not be tactful to contradict this.)
Dr. Evan Harris took the stand and was questioned for three brief
minutes, stating that he had known Tatchell since his election to Parliament
[in May 1997], and could vouch for his honesty and integrity.
Mr. Montagu began summing up for the Prosecution at 10:15, quoting
several antique items of case law, including one in 1900 of a clergyman who
was found guilty of "indecency" under the Act, for dealing [presumably in a
sermon] with "controversial matters".
He attempted to place weight upon the fact that there were placards,
on the "resistance that he [Tatchell] is alleged to have offered", on the
BBC footage where the Archbishop was seen to have been "displaced" from his
position in the pulpit, [he stepped aside 2-3 inches], only finally
mentioning the "disturbance in a sacred place of divine service".
He then referred to various sections of the Human Rights Act 1998,
(which received Royal Assent only on 9-November-1998), admitting that he did
not know which Sections are currently in force.
At 10:45 Mr. Guthrie began summing up the Defence case, stating that
since this was "probably the first prosecution in 32 years", no one could
have been expected to have knowledge of its existence.
He enlightened the Court by explaining that, prior to the ECJ Act,
the penalty for brawling in a church had merely been exclusion from church
on a first offence: though rising to loss of one ear for a second, the
other ear for a third, and branding on the face for a subsequent offence.
"The protest was a simple statement of fact: facts which are not
disputed by the Archbishop." He also referred to Carey's call for
General Pinochet to be allowed to return to Chile;
and to the story of Jesus and the money-changers.
At 11:07, Mr. Kelly adjourned the Court until 12:00,
to consider his verdict.
Mr. Kelly declared that Tatchell's behaviour was indecent (under the
terms of the ECJ Act), and that Sections 6, 7, and 22.4 of the Human Rights
Act are not currently relevant. Indeed, he pointed out that Article 9 of
the Human Rights Convention guarantees the right to religious observance.
He then declared that Tatchell was guilty as charged.
Mr. Montagu then applied for costs of 320 pounds to be awarded
against Tatchell. This was higher than normal, since there had been
30 outgoing letters, 20 letters received, numerous memoranda from the
police, and telephone calls.
Mr. Guthrie read a letter from the Rev. Richard Kirker of the LGCM
in support of Tatchell, and made a plea for a conditional discharge.
Mr. Kelly declared that this was the equivalent of a minor public
order offence, for which there would be no question of prison.
"You are a man of previous good character", he told Tatchell,
imposing a fine of 18 pounds 60 pence, plus 320 pounds costs.
Peter Tatchell's Statement outside the Court
I have been found guilty in a court of law: but I do not regard
myself as morally guilty of any crime. My actions in Canterbury Cathedral
were in defence of Human Rights.
I have been convicted of "indecent behaviour in a church" under an
unjust 1860 law that violates the right to free speech and peaceful protest.
It gives the church privileged protection against dissent. No other social
institution, not even Parliament, has such draconian, sweeping powers to
suppress protest.
What is indecent is not my defence of gay human rights in the
cathedral, but Dr. Carey's support for discrimination against lesbians and
gay men. It is the Archbishop who should have been on trial. He endorses
the abuse of homosexual human rights. That is the real crime.
The magistrate's witty, derisory fine of 18.60 is a clear reference
to the year the ECJ Act became law, and indicates that he regarded my
actions as a trifling offence. In his summing up, Mr. Justice Kelly said
he was not bound by earlier restrictive interpretations of the law.
This suggests that, were it not for the illiberal nature of the 1860 Act,
he may have found me not guilty.
The delightfully ironic fine indicates that he was questioning the
relevance and use of the Act to deal with peaceful protests.
He was sending a signal that prosecutions under this arcane Act
will not be taken seriously by the courts.
This has been a desperate prosecution from start to finish.
I was originally arrested for "criminal damage". That charge could not be
sustained, so it was not pursued. Instead, I was charged with
"violent behaviour". Neither could that be proved, so it was also dropped.
Eventually, I was charged with "indecent behaviour", which is obviously
absurd. No reasonable person would consider that what I did was indecent.
The true indecency is Dr. Carey's endorsement of antigay discrimination.
John Hunt, one of the seven OutRage! protesters at Easter who gave
evidence for the defence yesterday, added: "The Church of England
internal memo leaked by the Guardian earlier this year stated that the
church was 'light years behind the rest of society'. Mr. Justice Kelly
did not use such hyperbole: but he _did_ state that the previous use of
the Act 32 years ago was no longer appropriate today.
"Sadly, whilst Society and the Courts are progressing, (albeit slowly,
we may feel), as we approach the Millenium, Dr. Carey seems to be stuck in
the fin-de-(19th)-siècle era of of Wildean persecution. In 1954 the CoE
was more liberal, enlightened, and compassionate than it is under his arch
leadership today. He should meditate on the plight of today's teenagers:
such as Darren Steele, who, after enduring years of homophobic bullying,
committed suicide last month at the age of 15.
Carey is too heavenly minded to be of any earthly use.
May his successor be more charitable."
============================================
Tony Benn's Character Reference
Regina v. Peter Gary Tatchell
Evidence submitted to the Canterbury Magistrates' Court
by Rt. Hon. Tony Benn, MP
1-December-1998
My name is Tony Benn and I am a Member of Parliament, first elected
in 1950, and have been a Privy Councillor since 1964.
I have known Peter Tatchell since 1981 and have the greatest respect
for him as a man of principle, consistent in his convictions, non-violent
in his methods and wholly committed to the rights of homosexuals to equal
treatment before the law as a matter of human rights.
This view is not universally shared but it is, at last, becoming
accepted by the House of Commons in the drafting of legislation.
It is not necessary for anyone to agree with Mr. Tatchell's opinions
on this matter, or even to approve of his methods of campaigning, for his
own complete integrity to be recognised.
His intervention on Easter Sunday, when he entered the pulpit and
briefly interrupted the sermon to be preached by the Archbishop of
Canterbury because he opposes the views of the Archbishop on this issue,
may have disturbed some members of the congregation, may be criticised by
others who do not share his view, but cannot be held to have constituted
'riotous, violent or indecent behaviour' under the law, nor can it be
denied that what he did was solely motivated by his long-held personal
convictions and was entirely non-violent in character.
I hope that in considering this case the Court will take account of
the long history of dissent which has taken place in this country, and
world-wide, over the centuries, and which is now accepted as having, on
many occasions, played a significant and beneficial role in shaping public
opinion, the law of the land, and the thinking of the Church itself.
When Jesus himself entered the Temple in Jerusalem and turned out
the "changers' money and overthrew their tables" (St. John, Chapter 2,
Verses 14-15) this non-violent direct action could well have been an
offence under the then law, but is now accepted by the Church as a
historic and symbolic act.
It has long been accepted that 'Conscience is above the Law' and
that men and women who follow their own deeply held beliefs and peacefully
defy unjust laws are right to do so, and though they may be punished at the
time for what they have done are often upheld by the judgement of history.
For example, Christians who defied the Heresy Act of 1401, which made
it an offence, punishable by being hanged, drawn and quartered, for the
laity to read the Bible, are now seen to have been right in what they did:
and the law was later repealed.
Similarly the Suffragettes regularly broke the law to argue for the
right of women to vote, were imprisoned and are now seen to have been
martyrs in a just cause: and women now have the vote.
Conscientious objectors against war, the women at Greenham Common,
imprisoned by the Newbury Magistrates' Court in 1982 under the Justices
of the Peace [Act] of 1361 for action 'likely to lead to a breach of the
peace', and many others, have done what they believed to be right, have
paid the price for it: and are accepted as having been unjustly treated.
Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela, both of whom were imprisoned for
committing offences that no longer exist are now honoured for their
principled stand.
More recently three Anglican Bishops, a Roman Catholic Bishop and
five others including the Baptist superintendent, the Moderator of the
United Reformed Church and regional leaders of the Methodists, Salvation
Army and Moravians attacked the Poll Tax in 1990 and issued a statement
which included the phrase "Everyone has the right to protest peacefully
about a perceived injustice" (Guardian, 10-April-1990).
The evolution of democracy and the slow advance of human rights can,
very often, be attributed to those very people and the courage they showed.
Given this background it would, I respectfully submit, be quite wrong
for Peter Tatchell to be convicted under laws drawn up in past centuries
for quite different reasons, namely the Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction
Act of 1860, formerly embodied in the Brawling Act of 1551.
In addition I must add that were Mr. Tatchell to be convicted and
punished it could bring both the Courts and the Church itself into
disrepute, and would serve to remind the public that only the Churches
enjoy protection of this kind under the law: a protection not even
enjoyed by Parliament or other public gatherings.
For these reasons I hope this Court will find itself able to dismiss
the charges brought against Mr. Tatchell.
I would be glad to answer any questions which the Court might like
to put to me.
(Signed) Tony Benn
============================================
A copy of the proceedings of both days, with pictures,
together with Tatchell's plea of mitigation
may be found at:
http://www.OutRage.cygnet.co.uk/tatch98a.htm
============================================
============================================
--
You may leave this list automatically by sending a message to
list-processor@diversity.org.uk, containing a line that says
unsubscribe outrage-world
The 'lists' command will give information about other services